James Ripps v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 261
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ripps pleaded guilty in 2009 to child molesting as a Class C felony; eight-year sentence with six years and 300 days suspended to probation.
- Probation included terms prohibiting new crimes, informing residents of sexual conviction, and not living within 1,000 feet of a youth program center.
- In 2011 the State sought probation revocation for violating residency near a youth center and failure to inform residents; Ripps admitted the violations.
- The trial court revoked probation and ordered the remaining suspended term served in prison.
- Ripps challenged the revocation as an abuse of discretion; the court of appeals reversed, citing totality of circumstances and health considerations.
- The assistant mailed record shows Ripps’s health issues and relocation to Ripley Crossing, with the library distance dispute surrounding the 1,000-foot rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revoking probation was an abuse of discretion | Ripps | State | Yes; abuse of discretion |
| Whether admission of violation foreclosed consideration of mitigation | Ripps | State | No; mitigation considered under Woods framework |
| Whether ex post facto concerns impacted revocation consequences | Ripps | State | Partially; ex post facto context influenced, but not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (probation revocation review requires balancing discretion and due process considerations)
- Tapia v. State, 753 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard in probation context explained via Stroud formulation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process framework for revocation hearings; two-step process)
- Pollard v. State, 908 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. 2009) (ex post facto considerations in residency/registration context)
- Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667 (Ind. 2009) (reaffirmed abuse of discretion review in probation)